save_schedule

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions creating a revision backup, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it doesn't disclose other important aspects like whether this is a destructive action (overwrites existing template?), required permissions, or what happens if the template is not dirty. It's partially transparent but leaves gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that clearly states the purpose and key behavior (backup creation). It avoids unnecessary words and is well-structured, front-loading the core action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has one enum parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete in that it explains the primary purpose and a key side effect (revision backup). However, it doesn't explain what 'dirty' means, what triggers a backup vs. not, or any potential side effects like overwriting. For a mutation tool with no annotations, it could be more detailed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema is simple with one enum parameter (scheduleType: group/private). The schema already fully documents the valid values, so the description adds no additional meaning. Context signals show 0% schema description coverage, but with a single enum param, the schema is sufficient. The description doesn't explain what 'dirty' means or how it relates to scheduleType, but the baseline is adequate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: explicitly save a dirty schedule template. It also mentions the resource (schedule template) and adds the detail of creating a revision backup when replacing an existing saved template. This distinguishes it from other schedule-related tools like save or import, though it could be more explicit about the 'dirty' state concept.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool should be used when a schedule template is dirty and needs to be saved, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., auto-save, or using import_schedule_file). It doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.